Forum: Ruby Serious danger of being impressed

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Eaa5275b7c8df78c4d4216169c3add10?d=identicon&s=25 Mark Carter (Guest)
on 2007-06-10 17:21
(Received via mailing list)
I'm mostly into Python, and decided to have a go at writing a little
accounts package (in python on OS X). It worked in its primitive way,
and I was looking to take it to the next level.

I decided that sqlite was the way to go. For some reason I couldn't get
sqlite3 and the python module to work properly - it didn't seem to
commit the data to the database consistently.

So I thought, what the hell, I'll try Ruby. I switched over to Ubuntu,
because it seemed a bit easier than OS X. First impressions: oh man! The
sqlite package worked fine, and I came across rsqlitegui, which I can
use to inspect the database when coding isn't required.

I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.

I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over from OS
X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a nice
polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.
41c597a48c80e37ba68d1adc7095ea0e?d=identicon&s=25 Sam Smoot (Guest)
on 2007-06-10 18:30
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 10, 10:15 am, Mark Carter <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> sqlite package worked fine, and I came across rsqlitegui, which I can
> use to inspect the database when coding isn't required.
>
> I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.
>
> I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over from OS
> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a nice
> polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.

There's a few sore spots on the Mac, but I find MacPorts does the
trick most
of the time.

port install ruby rb-rubygems rb-sqlite3

That should do the trick as long as you don't mind the /opt/lib file
structure.

I always modify my ~/.profile as well to include:

export RUBYLIB="/opt/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/"
export RUBYOPT="rubygems"

I just don't like having to manually require 'ruby_gems' ;-)

Sure it's not perfect, but MacPorts means I've never had to think
twice about the notoriously difficult RMagick install:

port install rb-rmagick

It's no apt-get, but I'll leave that to the servers. Trade in OS X for
Ubuntu? For me that'd be tough. Kubuntu maybe. ;-) Kate is second only
to TextMate IMO.

Either way you decide to go, good luck!
B4c95d150495a8726f8496e96035bdd2?d=identicon&s=25 Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality (Guest)
on 2007-06-10 20:12
(Received via mailing list)
"Mark Carter" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:466c1597$0$27859$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.

    As a language, Ruby has always been "a serious contender" for
Python.
Personally, I like it a lot more than Python.
    The main advantage of Python over Ruby is a larger library and (more
importantly, since there is a rich library for Ruby) a much more mature
implementation.  Sadly, Python is, really, just as powerful a language
as
Ruby, so this gives people every reason to use Python over Ruby, so it
would
help Ruby to work on these things...
    What is the state of Ruby development, does anyone know?  The
impression
that I get is that it's slow and diluted across multiple, parallel
efforts...
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-06-10 20:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 12:20:12AM +0900, Mark Carter wrote:
> sqlite package worked fine, and I came across rsqlitegui, which I can
> use to inspect the database when coding isn't required.
>
> I think Ruby is a serious serious contender for python.
>
> I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over from OS
> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a nice
> polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.

If you like Ubuntu's repositories, you should check out Debian's -- much
more extensive, and generally conducive to a more stable system, too.

Similar in extensiveness is FreeBSD's ports collection -- and even
*more*
conducive to stability than Debian's repositories.  That's hard to beat.

Both Debian and FreeBSD tend to work best for people who are willing and
able to make their own decisions, however, more than people who want
something "easy".  Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows
transplant, I suppose.

The above is just one curmudgeonly free unix hacker's opinion, of
course.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 02:27
(Received via mailing list)
Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> The above is just one curmudgeonly free unix hacker's opinion, of course.
>

And Gentoo Linux is a good compromise between FreeBSD's ports and
Debian's repositories. Gentoo's Portage actually descended from ports.

As far as stability is concerned, Debian stable (currently called Etch)
is probably as stable as FreeBSD and I think *more* stable than Red Hat
Enterprise or the RHEL clones.

But I will stick with Gentoo for Ruby. Except when the Gentoo devs don't
get prodded from the Ruby community, a Ruby release shows up in Portage
within a day or so. They have jRuby 1.0 RC1 the last time I synced,
which was yesterday, for example. And they have more gems than Debian, I
think.
Cec345a59245af9d06e4438a413f4eb5?d=identicon&s=25 Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 04:11
(Received via mailing list)
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky:

> Chad Perrin wrote:

>> If you like Ubuntu's repositories, you should check out Debian's --
>> much more extensive, and generally conducive to a more stable system,
>> too.

Ubuntu’s based on Debian unstable, so the repositories should more
or less match. Also, while I consider Debian stable more stable than
Ubuntu, I consider Ubuntu stable more stable than Debian unstable. :)

> And they [Gentoo] have more gems than Debian, I think.

That said, Debian (and, thus, Ubuntu) has the rubygems package, which
can easily install any gem (to /var/lib/gems, so outside dpkg’s domain).

Note: A quick check at packages.gentoo.org indicates that Gentoo
has a rubygems package as well, so this might be a moot point.

-- Shot
0cb023654f46a6bd171405af6419baf6?d=identicon&s=25 darren kirby (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 05:22
(Received via mailing list)
quoth the M. Edward (Ed) Borasky:

> And Gentoo Linux is a good compromise between FreeBSD's ports and
> Debian's repositories. Gentoo's Portage actually descended from ports.

Really? Like as in, Linux descended from Unix? Or in some direct
fashion? I
always thought portage was an 'homage' to ports, so to speak.

<snip>

> But I will stick with Gentoo for Ruby. Except when the Gentoo devs don't
> get prodded from the Ruby community, a Ruby release shows up in Portage
> within a day or so. They have jRuby 1.0 RC1 the last time I synced,
> which was yesterday, for example. And they have more gems than Debian, I
> think.

The paludis devs are currently working on direct support for gems
repositories. Once this is complete we will have direct support for all
gems,
without having to wait for them to become ebuilds (not that writing an
ebuild
for a gem isn't trivial...)

Very cool...

-d
1c0cd550766a3ee3e4a9c495926e4603?d=identicon&s=25 John Joyce (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 08:42
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 10, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:

>> So I thought, what the hell, I'll try Ruby. I switched over to
>> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a
> beat.
> --
> CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable
> substitute for
> wit."
>
Ubunut is a Debian Linux.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 09:22
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 03:42:03PM +0900, John Joyce wrote:
> >
> >Both Debian and FreeBSD tend to work best for people who are
> >willing and
> >able to make their own decisions, however, more than people who want
> >something "easy".  Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows
> >transplant, I suppose.
> >
> >The above is just one curmudgeonly free unix hacker's opinion, of
> >course.
> >
> Ubunut is a Debian Linux.

Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.  It has less in common with Debian itself
than
PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have in common with FreeBSD, and may even have
less
in common with Debian than Dragonfly BSD has with FreeBSD.

In fact, measured within the context of Linux distributions, about the
only thing it meaningfully has in common with Debian is the
under-the-hood package management software it uses (namely, DPKG and
APT).
A52b0e1c5d982f2512a03c5dbfd033d6?d=identicon&s=25 Dick Davies (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 09:28
(Received via mailing list)
Ok, thanks for the advert. Debian has its own problems, but this isn't
the place to discuss them.
509e15b158eaac5ab3a5332a3f89d4a7?d=identicon&s=25 Peter Cooper (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 09:47
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/10/07, Mark Carter <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
> I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over from OS
> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a nice
> polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.


Do bear in mind that it's pretty easy to use /both/ on modern Macs.
Linux
has a lot going for it from a development point of view, and most of the
documentation out there (not to mention most of the packages) is aimed
at
Linux-based builds. OS X is great as the day to day desktop, though.. so
a
lot of people use both. You can use Parallels or VMWare Fusion (the
latter
currently being free and faster) and live in the utopia of a great
desktop
but with a well-supported and popular cross-platform architecture on tap
for
development purposes.

Cheers,
Peter Cooper
http://www.rubyinside.com/
Fa2521c6539342333de9f42502657e5a?d=identicon&s=25 Eleanor McHugh (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 14:41
(Received via mailing list)
On 10 Jun 2007, at 19:48, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> Similar in extensiveness is FreeBSD's ports collection -- and even
> *more*
> conducive to stability than Debian's repositories.  That's hard to
> beat.
>
> Both Debian and FreeBSD tend to work best for people who are
> willing and
> able to make their own decisions, however, more than people who want
> something "easy".  Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows
> transplant, I suppose.

I must admit that since swapping to FreeBSD last year I find using
most Linux distros unnecessarily cumbersome and increasingly user
friendly in the same way as Windows. But OS X is also a damn pleasant
platform to use and I probably do more of my Ruby development work on
it than I do on FreeBSD - TextMate alone makes it hugely productive!
Ubuntu would be the platform that I'd recommend to a Windows user
looking to get into Linux as a user, and Gentoo if they really want
to deep geek how a Linux system hangs together :)


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
Fa2521c6539342333de9f42502657e5a?d=identicon&s=25 Eleanor McHugh (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 15:02
(Received via mailing list)
On 11 Jun 2007, at 08:45, Peter Cooper wrote:
>> I'm also in two minds as to whether I should try to switch over
>> from OS
>> X permanently. I'm new to iMacs, and I have to say that OS X has a
>> nice
>> polish to it; but then Ubuntu, gotta love those repositories.
>
> OS X is great as the day to day desktop, though.. so a
> lot of people use both. You can use Parallels or VMWare Fusion (the
> latter
> currently being free and faster)

Not on my laptop it isn't ;)
The main advantages VMWare has right now are limited DirectX support
in Windows guests, and two virtual processors. Parallels 3.0 could
blow the former away (full DirectX and OpenGL support, although until
I play with it I'm not counting my chickens) and it happily uses both
cores of my Core Duo (at least, CPU usage has been known to greatly
exceed 100% when doing busy stuff). On the whole though I'd say they
both perform equivalently and are viable choices for anyone who wants
to run multiple OSs concurrently on their Mac :)


Ellie

Being and Doing are merely useful abstractions for the 'time'-
dependent asymmetries of phase space.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 15:16
(Received via mailing list)
Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> Not on my laptop it isn't ;)
> Ellie
>
> Being and Doing are merely useful abstractions for the 'time'-dependent
> asymmetries of phase space.
>
>
>
>
>

Well, as long as we're talking virtualization, has anyone managed to get
a Xen system on one of the chips with the virtualization assist to run
OS X as a "guest?" Or does Xen not support the special hardware tweaks
in a Mac? Dual or triple booting is a pain.

Is there virtualization in openSolaris? Will it run a Windows or MacOS
guest?
8f6f95c4bd64d5f10dfddfdcd03c19d6?d=identicon&s=25 Rick Denatale (rdenatale)
on 2007-06-11 20:20
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

> Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.

More true in theory than in practice.  There was a lot more noise
about the fear that Ubuntu would be a fork back in 2005 when Debian
users were getting tired of waiting for Sarge and Ubuntu started to
appear on the horizon.

But the truth is, at least, more nuanced. And even guys like Ian
Murdoch pointed that out at the time:

http://ianmurdock.com/?p=167

And for a view from the Ubuntu "camp" at that time:
http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html

Ubuntu takes packages from sid, stabilizes them before debian, but
feeds whatever changes they make back to the sid stream.

So it provides a stream of debian derived releases but instead of
using the traditional Debian model of "we'll ship the next stable
version when it's ready," Ubuntu has a time-box ship model.  Ubuntu
makes the final decision on what's going to actually make the next
release based on which packages have achieved stability in time to
make it, instead of waiting until all of the packages which were
picked at the time the release was started get there. One way of
looking at this is that Debian has a more waterfall release cycle
while Ubuntu is managed using more of the agile project management
approach.  Back when Ubuntu "Badger" was in the throes of being
released, Debian Woody was several years old, and Sarge looked to be
slipping almost faster than the release date was approaching,
something which Murdock alludes to in the post I quoted.

The tension is/was? between the needs of server administrators who
favor a stable platform with security maintainence, and developers who
want more recent versions of the upstream code.  Back then Ubuntu was
better for the latter.  Then they introduced 'long term support'
releases which are specific Ubuntu releases which will have committed
support for five years (or there abouts).  This helps the server
users, since the downside of Debian's support policy is that they only
provided maintenance for an older stable release for a limited time
after a new stable release becomes available.  The net is that Ubuntu
provides both newer code in the latest release for those who want it,
and more predictable support of older releases for those who need
stability.

> It has less in common with Debian itself than
> PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have in common with FreeBSD, and may even have less
> in common with Debian than Dragonfly BSD has with FreeBSD.

I don't know enough about those distributions to make the comparison,
but from my experience, Ubuntu doesn't feel like a fork.  Even if
Debian doesn't take ALL of ubuntu's packages as time goes on, I
predict that the bulk of the code will remain compatible.

That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
because of Ubuntu but because of Debian.  In the case of Ruby one
major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.

--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
88c6023527fbe5a832d1092d7d032a95?d=identicon&s=25 fREW (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 22:10
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/11/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
> Murdoch pointed that out at the time:
> using the traditional Debian model of "we'll ship the next stable
> something which Murdock alludes to in the post I quoted.
> provides both newer code in the latest release for those who want it,
> predict that the bulk of the code will remain compatible.
> Rick DeNatale
>
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>
>

Last time I looked at it there was some weird philosophy for not
having gems support in apt.  If I remember correctly it was because
gem uses a folder per package type deal and that goes against the
grain of apt.  I can't find where I read this, so you'd need to do
lots of googling to find it.
7e593ac63e5f25649b701dc25f69d1b7?d=identicon&s=25 Luis Parravicini (Guest)
on 2007-06-11 22:24
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/11/07, fREW <frioux@gmail.com> wrote:
> Last time I looked at it there was some weird philosophy for not
> having gems support in apt.  If I remember correctly it was because
> gem uses a folder per package type deal and that goes against the
> grain of apt.  I can't find where I read this, so you'd need to do
> lots of googling to find it.
>
> --
> -fREW

There are several points they are complaining about rubygems on
http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 03:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:27:01PM +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
> Ok, thanks for the advert. Debian has its own problems, but this isn't
> the place to discuss them.
>
> On 11/06/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>
> >Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.

Uhh . . . what?  I said it was a fork.  I didn't say it was crap.  I'm
not sure where you're coming from with the hostile tone.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development):

  In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a
  copy of source code from one software package and start independent
  development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.

From http://wiki.ursine.ca/Fork:

  In the open-source community, a fork is what occurs when two (or more)
  versions of a software package's source code are being developed in
  parallel which once shared a common code base, and these multiple
  versions of the source code have irreconcilable differences between
  them.

(Note: The commentary about Linux distribution forking in the Jargon
Wiki
is somewhat naive, in terms of its assumptions about the differences
between Linux distributions.  The key component of forking is
incompatibility, not whether or not something is composed primarily of
widely available elements.)

So . . . why does your statement read as though you thought I said
"Ubuntu is a *crappy Debian fork*!"?  I said nothing of the kind in my
statement as quoted by you.  I pointed out that Ubuntu and Debian are
not
compatible -- are not, in fact, simply different implementations of the
same standard, as the previous message seemed to imply.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 03:45
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 03:18:45AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>
> >Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.
>
> More true in theory than in practice.  There was a lot more noise
> about the fear that Ubuntu would be a fork back in 2005 when Debian
> users were getting tired of waiting for Sarge and Ubuntu started to
> appear on the horizon.

If you cannot install a Debian package in Ubuntu, or vice versa, without
running substantial risk of breaking the system, it sounds like a fork
to
me.


> feeds whatever changes they make back to the sid stream.
In Ubuntu releases, there's a lot more changed.  A simple look at some
of
the software dependencies enforced by APT in Ubuntu, as contrasted with
those in vanilla Debian, will make that clear.


> approach.  Back when Ubuntu "Badger" was in the throes of being
> released, Debian Woody was several years old, and Sarge looked to be
> slipping almost faster than the release date was approaching,
> something which Murdock alludes to in the post I quoted.

I really don't think the waterfall vs. agile analogy holds even slightly
true.  Both Ubuntu and Debian strive to produce "complete" distribution
releases with each release cycle.  Debian maintains a constant state of
operational functionality during development of the finished release
(thus the "testing" branch), and Ubuntu (from what I've seen) provides a
more "there's nothing to see until it's done" state of development until
it approaches release-worthiness.  Neither of these sounds anything like
either Waterfall or Agile development to me.  In Waterfall development,
nothing's functional until you're done, and you're not done until you've
achieved some overarching plan.  In Agile development, you have
functional milestones, but you're not really done until you've achieved
some overarching plan (though, of course, the plan changes while being
executed).


> provides both newer code in the latest release for those who want it,
> and more predictable support of older releases for those who need
> stability.

It's pretty clear that the unfortunate comparison of Debian to Waterfall
development was no accident.  You have a definite Ubuntu bias.


>
> >It has less in common with Debian itself than
> >PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have in common with FreeBSD, and may even have less
> >in common with Debian than Dragonfly BSD has with FreeBSD.
>
> I don't know enough about those distributions to make the comparison,
> but from my experience, Ubuntu doesn't feel like a fork.  Even if
> Debian doesn't take ALL of ubuntu's packages as time goes on, I
> predict that the bulk of the code will remain compatible.

Code: yes.  Packaging: no.  Since Linux distributions are defined by
their software management systems and installers more than by the source
code inside the various pieces of software, that pretty much makes
Ubuntu
a fork (though a still-recent one that attempts to derive some benefit
from similarities between the two distributions).


>
> That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
> versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
> because of Ubuntu but because of Debian.  In the case of Ruby one
> major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
> recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
> Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
> Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.

Whether or not Ubuntu supports gems is not dependent upon whether or not
Debian does so.  It's dependent upon Ubuntu management decisions.  The
Ruby packages have already diverged nontrivially from those in Debian
(though obviously not as much so as certain other packages).
15a3e0ca3a90c53741c97b351d05ff6f?d=identicon&s=25 Benjamin Kudria (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 03:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Monday, June 11 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development):
>   versions of the source code have irreconcilable differences between
> statement as quoted by you.  I pointed out that Ubuntu and Debian are not
> compatible -- are not, in fact, simply different implementations of the
> same standard, as the previous message seemed to imply.

Well, I have issues with your statement too.

Ubuntu may be a fork, but that's not telling the whole story.

For one, Ubuntu is "re-forked" every 6 months, after every release.
Less of a
fork, more of a companion code-path.  If that makes any sense.

Secondly, you say "The key component of forking is incompatibility..."
I can personally attest that Ubuntu and Debian are compatible in a
number of
ways (but not all!).  I've used Debian packages in Ubuntu before (and
vice-versa)

Ubuntu is a downstream version of Debian - it's Debian, with changes,
re-synced every 6 months.  How about, "Ubuntu is a Debian *patch*". ?

-Benjamin Kudria
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 03:55
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:48:26AM +0900, Benjamin Kudria wrote:
>
> Well, I have issues with your statement too.
>
> Ubuntu may be a fork, but that's not telling the whole story.
>
> For one, Ubuntu is "re-forked" every 6 months, after every release.  Less of a
> fork, more of a companion code-path.  If that makes any sense.

Parts of the system are.  Others continue on the same old path of the
original fork.  The fact it "reborrows" good stuff is to Ubuntu's
credit,
but does not make it less of a fork.


>
> Secondly, you say "The key component of forking is incompatibility..."
> I can personally attest that Ubuntu and Debian are compatible in a number of
> ways (but not all!).  I've used Debian packages in Ubuntu before (and
> vice-versa)

There are some things that are compatible between, say, MS Windows XP
Pro
and Debian, too -- but they're even less compatible than a proper fork.


>
> Ubuntu is a downstream version of Debian - it's Debian, with changes,
> re-synced every 6 months.  How about, "Ubuntu is a Debian *patch*". ?

Maybe, kind-sorta, except that it's not "a" patch.  If it can be
compared
to patches at all, it's a *bloody lot* of patches.
Ff63c03fd68754adbadd2c6314646bef?d=identicon&s=25 Bill Guindon (agorilla)
on 2007-06-12 04:36
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/11/07, Benjamin Kudria <bkudria@eml.cc> wrote:
> >
> >   parallel which once shared a common code base, and these multiple
> > "Ubuntu is a *crappy Debian fork*!"?  I said nothing of the kind in my
>
> Secondly, you say "The key component of forking is incompatibility..."
> I can personally attest that Ubuntu and Debian are compatible in a number of
> ways (but not all!).  I've used Debian packages in Ubuntu before (and
> vice-versa)
>
> Ubuntu is a downstream version of Debian - it's Debian, with changes,
> re-synced every 6 months.  How about, "Ubuntu is a Debian *patch*". ?

Is this the place, or the thread, to discuss this?

Forgive my ignorance, I"m a 'born again noob', and I always will be.
1c0cd550766a3ee3e4a9c495926e4603?d=identicon&s=25 John Joyce (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 07:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> Murdoch pointed that out at the time:
> using the traditional Debian model of "we'll ship the next stable
> something which Murdock alludes to in the post I quoted.
> provides both newer code in the latest release for those who want it,
> Debian doesn't take ALL of ubuntu's packages as time goes on, I
> --
> Rick DeNatale
>
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>
Uh, Debian does run gem and gems just fine.
Shared hosting provider DreamHost is proof of that.
Their servers are Debian, and they do have gems. I've installed my
own local gems on an account there.
A52b0e1c5d982f2512a03c5dbfd033d6?d=identicon&s=25 Dick Davies (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 08:49
(Received via mailing list)
On 12/06/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:27:01PM +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
> > Ok, thanks for the advert. Debian has its own problems, but this isn't
> > the place to discuss them.
> >
> > On 11/06/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.
>
> Uhh . . . what?  I said it was a fork.  I didn't say it was crap.  I'm
> not sure where you're coming from with the hostile tone.

I wasn't trying to be hostile, but that was your second post about
Ubuntu and
Debian and the thread wasn't about either.

> So . . . why does your statement read as though you thought I said
> "Ubuntu is a *crappy Debian fork*!"?

That would be your first post, saying :

"Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows transplant, I
suppose"

:)
Ad7805c9fcc1f13efc6ed11251a6c4d2?d=identicon&s=25 Alex Young (regularfry)
on 2007-06-12 09:26
(Received via mailing list)
John Joyce wrote:
<snip>
> Uh, Debian does run gem and gems just fine.
> Shared hosting provider DreamHost is proof of that.
> Their servers are Debian, and they do have gems. I've installed my own
> local gems on an account there.
>
I think the point is that a gem can't be installed as a .deb, so apt
can't have any knowledge of them.
A84d51d60791f8e0fb6d27a8a8b2a96e?d=identicon&s=25 Neil Wilson (neilw)
on 2007-06-12 10:16
(Received via mailing list)
The Rubygems package is now in Debian/Ubuntu, but it is mildly
crippled. However if you run

gem update --system

then it magically turns into the normal ruby gem system.

APT still doesn't know anything about gems, but it is less of a
problem than you'd think.

My approach with Ubuntu is to install from APT packages unless the APT
package is just a port of a gem.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 12:28
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0900, Bill Guindon wrote:

[ snip a bunch of quoted detritus from the "fork" discussion ]

>
> Is this the place, or the thread, to discuss this?

Probably not.


>
> Forgive my ignorance, I"m a 'born again noob', and I always will be.

Your point is well taken.  If anyone needs forgiveness, it's me and the
others involved in this tangent.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 12:30
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
> >not sure where you're coming from with the hostile tone.
> "Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows transplant, I suppose"
At the time I typed that sentence, I meant that it provided a more
familiar face for the recent transplant, increasing comfort for people
not steeped in Linux wisdom.  One might say that my statement only
implied that Ubuntu is more "user friendly" to recent MS Windows
converts
than vanilla Debian.

Isn't "user friendly" supposed to be a good thing, all else being equal?
Fa2521c6539342333de9f42502657e5a?d=identicon&s=25 Eleanor McHugh (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 16:15
(Received via mailing list)
On 11 Jun 2007, at 14:15, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Well, as long as we're talking virtualization, has anyone managed
> to get
> a Xen system on one of the chips with the virtualization assist to run
> OS X as a "guest?" Or does Xen not support the special hardware tweaks
> in a Mac? Dual or triple booting is a pain.

I know of people running OS X as a guest inside VMWare so it should
be possible, but obviously Xen's approach is sufficiently different
that I wouldn't expect much (if anything) in the way of driver support.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 16:38
(Received via mailing list)
Eleanor McHugh wrote:
>
> Ellie
>
> Eleanor McHugh
> Games With Brains
> ----
> raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
>
>
>
>
It's been a while since I looked, but IIRC there are two ways to run
Xen:

1. You boot the Xen kernel, which is a modified Linux kernel. It does
all the I/O and driver stuff. Guest machines require a modified kernel,
which IIRC only exists for Linux.

2. If you have the Intel or AMD virtualization-enabled chips, you boot
the Xen kernel and it can then boot and OS with an unmodified kernel.
This works for at least Windows and Linux, but I don't know about MacOS.

In any event, the drivers in mode 2 are the guest OS drivers, so it
"should work".
Fa2521c6539342333de9f42502657e5a?d=identicon&s=25 Eleanor McHugh (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 17:31
(Received via mailing list)
On 12 Jun 2007, at 15:37, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> all the I/O and driver stuff. Guest machines require a modified
> kernel,
> which IIRC only exists for Linux.
>
> 2. If you have the Intel or AMD virtualization-enabled chips, you boot
> the Xen kernel and it can then boot and OS with an unmodified kernel.
> This works for at least Windows and Linux, but I don't know about
> MacOS.
>
> In any event, the drivers in mode 2 are the guest OS drivers, so it
> "should work".

Mode 1 would definitely not work with Apple's distribution, but given
that Darwin's kernel is open source (and already much abused in
various other ways) it should be possible to build a Xen-friendly
version. However I'm not aware of anyone currently working on this.

Ironically Mode 2 could be more problematic as OS X would expect Mac-
like hardware, so if Xen provides virtual hardware in the same way as
VMWare that could restrict functionality. However if it fully
supports Intel's Vanderpool technology and the host machine had
hardware supported by OS X natively then in theory it should just
work out of the box. If only I could justify the time to experiment...


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
703fbc991fd63e0e1db54dca9ea31b53?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Dober (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 17:54
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/12/07, Bill Guindon <agorilla@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Benjamin Kudria <bkudria@eml.cc> wrote:

>
> Is this the place, or the thread, to discuss this?
It depends. --note that I carefully have deleted your quote ;)
I have no idea, but this community seems to be very tolerant and
interested in things orbiting around ruby.
On the rare occasions when people got upset with discussions and asked
politely to take a thread offlist that is just done.

Personally I think this topic is quite interesting, others of course
might not, please not that there is the not so slight possibility that
the choice of the distro intervenes with your ruby experience.

>
> Forgive my ignorance, I"m a 'born again noob', and I always will be.
You mean like eternal youth ;)
>
> > -Benjamin Kudria
Cheers
Robert
703fbc991fd63e0e1db54dca9ea31b53?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Dober (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 17:55
(Received via mailing list)
Erratum
echo "quote" | sed /quote/sig/

Sorry
R.
1c0cd550766a3ee3e4a9c495926e4603?d=identicon&s=25 John Joyce (Guest)
on 2007-06-12 17:59
(Received via mailing list)
Indeed, relying on apt is not always good. It's great for trying out
packages, but in the end, you will be better off in your
understanding of the tools you are using if you just install them
yourself. With Rails and Ruby you're eventually going to have to do
installs yourself anyway, unless somebody else is doing it for you.
The same goes for OS X and MacPorts'  opt, it is nice and convenient,
but the paths are going to be non-standard and you'll have to still
customize a lot of things to get things working, so you'll still need
to know the how/what/where/why.

If you can write the code, you can definitely install the stuff. It's
worth it for your Ruby points.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.